Tertia Pars
7. Summa III, Q.2, Arts. 3–5: One Hypostasis in Christ, the Sense in Which His Person Is 'Composed', and the Union of His Soul and Body
Class of 2008-10-09
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/007-summa-iii-q-2-arts-3-5-one-hypostasis-in-christ-the-sense/

[0:00] Prayer first. Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God our enlightenment, guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Pray for us. And help us to understand all that you've written. Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:34] So now some of these things may seem a little picky on Thomas's part, but it goes back into a long history, right? People, you know, were misusing these words, right? And some would say there's one person, but two hypostases and all kinds of things, right?

[0:53] So to the third one proceeds thus: it seems that the union of the incarnate Word was not made in the underlying, the suppositum, or in the what hypostasis, right? And it's those two words, one from Latin, one in Greek, is saying, what etymology, right? Okay. But they properly name something subsisting, right, in the genus of substance.

[1:26] For Augustine says in the Enchiridion, faith, hope, and charity, that the divine substance and the human substance both are the one Son of what God, but other on account of the Word and other on account of the what man.

[1:49] And Leo the Pope says in the Epistle to Flavian, one of these right breaks forth miracles, right? Then I guess it goes back to the idea of horns, huh?

[2:06] The first meaning of it is very vivid in Latin or Greek. And the other succumbs to what injuries, right? So he does his miracles in a sense by his divine nature primarily, and by his human nature he succumbs to the suffering and death. Yeah. But everything that is other and other, just kind of like a little Latin here, right? Because we don't have this uh this distinct in our grammar, right?

[2:38] They differ in what. Yeah. Therefore, the union of the incarnate Word was not made in the what suppositum, the underlying. huh? Interesting. huh, you've got to be kind of careful with grammar, right? In different languages, I was thinking of the word "nothing" the other day, right? And if I say "nothing is nothing,"

[3:23] that statement is true, right? Look, that's an affirmative or negative statement. Nothing is nothing. It's affirmative about a negative. Yeah, but it is an affirmative statement, right? Okay. Okay. Now, suppose I say "nothing

[3:43] is better than God." Is that it? Also an affirmative statement? Well, if that was an affirmative statement, it'd be false, right? Now, so actually, I'm guilty of throwing nothing there, right? If I said "no thing is better than God," right, then it'd be clearly that it's a negative statement, right? But yet, speaking as a logician, right, and understanding this in the same way, right, I'd say this is a what?

[4:32] Negative statement, right? Even though it seems to be what grammatically affirmative, right? I mean, grammatically speaking, "is" is a verb, of course, right? Just like that. And "nothing," I suppose, would be classified as what? Yeah, or a noun. It's a noun, right? But if you say "no thing," this would be a noun, but this is yeah, it's a sign of negation. We

[5:12] have all kinds of problems because Thomas will often see in some of his articles a distinction between "alius" and what? Aliud. Yeah, yeah. So, like in the study of the Trinity, is the Father aliud from the you know? If you use the neuter like that or something, it might signify that there's a different nature, different thing. But if you say "alius," maybe that's okay to say, huh?

[5:39] Because that's could be applied to distinction of what persons, right? Now, this word hypostasis has other problems, right? Because even though etymologically hypostasis should be used for any subsisting individual of the genus of substance. Maybe by custom it comes to mean what? Same thing as person, right? So the Greeks would confess their faith, maybe saying, "there's three hypostasis in Christ, huh? " I mean, the Trinity, yeah.

[6:15] Yeah, but they talk about the incarnation as the what? Hypostatic union, right? Okay. But mean the same thing by union and hypostasis as we mean by union and the what? Yeah, yeah. I know it's in philosophy too. You know, we have words like "anyone home" Well, anyone." does that refer to a chair, or table? Am I thinking, is there anything in the house? No, I mean a person, right?

[6:45] But etymologically, anyone could could fit. Anyone chair, anyone, you know. But it's some things you got to, you know, have a little common sense, you know. But they're different from one language and another, right? If everybody's somebody, then nobody's anybody. Yeah.

[7:06] Yeah. And and uh what's the Greek word for for nothing? U uh Uden. Yeah, I think so. Udan, yeah. So you had the negative ou there, and you have one, so no one means nothing, you know. And for us, no one would be, listen, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah. So,

[7:30] back and forth between the Greeks and the Romans, you can see there could be lots of room for misunderstanding, and lots of room for the heretics too, right? So, so it's the history of these things, huh?

[7:48] Well, I mean, alius would be used more for what distinction of persons. Yes. And alius more for a distinction of substance, something that's more neutral Yeah. yeah. It's like what St. Vincent of Lérins says about in the Trinity, it's alius and alius but in the Savior, it's aliud and aliud Oh, okay that's more or less the same type of distinction. Oh, okay.

[8:24] Moreover, in, hypostasis is nothing other than a what particular or individual substance, as Boethius says in the book about the two natures. But as manifested in Christ, there is a what? Another particular substance besides the hypostasis of the Word. To it, the body and soul, and the thing composed from these two. Therefore, in Christ, there is another hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the Word of God, right?

[8:59] These are the dangers of these things. Moreover, the hypostasis of the Word is not contained in any genus, nor under any species, as is clear from those things that have been said in the first part. That's the question on the simplicity of God, right? That God is not in any what genus or any species. But Christ, according as He's made a man, is contained under the human what species?

[9:31] For Dionysius says in the first chapter about the divine names, He was made within, right, our nature, right, who exceeds every order according to what every nature, right, in a supersubstantial way.

[9:54] But He's not contained under the human race, except the what hypostasis of the human species. Therefore, in Christ, there is another hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the Word of God, and that's the same as before. You can see how pinning down Nestorius and his followers and heresies can be hard to get very precise. But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. In our Lord Jesus Christ, we know two natures, right?

[10:31] Recognize two natures, but one what? Hypostasis. I guess Damascene is writing in Greek, right? So. Now Thomas says this is where this comes up, right? I answer that some, being ignorant, right, of the relation of hypostasis to person, right, not understanding the distinction and so on of these two, although they concede in Christ that there's only one person, right, they laid down nevertheless that there's a other what?

[11:09] Hypothesis of God and another one of what? Man, saying as if the union was made in the person but not in the hypostasis. Now this all appears erroneous in three ways, right?

[11:30] First, from the fact that person does not add above hypostasis anything except a determined nature, to wit, a rational nature. Rational being used in the broad sense for reason or understanding. According as Boethius says in the book about the two natures, that a person is an individual substance of a rational nature, right?

[12:01] And therefore, it is the same thing to attribute its own hypostasis to the human nature in Christ, right? And its own what? Person. Do you see that?

[12:16] So, if you say the hypostasis is a human hypostasis, you're saying what? Person. It's a human person. Now you've got two persons there. Okay. So person person equals hypostasis plus rational nature. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if you say the human nature in Christ has its own hypostasis, you're admitting that there's a person besides the divine person there. You get two persons, and now you're in the the error of Nestorius, right?

[12:46] She should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ. Okay, Theotokos. People say there's nothing wrong with what he's saying. Even the people on the pew, if they did have pews in those days, which the holy fathers right understanding both in the what fifth council celebrated at Constantinople. I guess it's second Constantinople. Damn, Navarre, huh? Damn, that's the Latin for anathema, right? Damn, did you see that?

[13:31] Okay. If someone attempts to introduce into the mystery of Christ, right, two subsistences, right, or two persons, such a one is cursed, right? Anathema.

[13:53] For the Holy Trinity does not receive an addition of what a person or subsistence in the what one incarnate Word of God who came from the Holy Trinity, right? It doesn't admit two persons in there or two substances. Subsistencia says there is the same thing as the subsisting thing, right? Which is proper to the hypostasis, as is clear through Boethius in the book on the what two natures, right?

[14:31] Secondly, because even if one were to give that person does add something over what hypostasis, in which there could be a union. This would be nothing other than a property pertaining to what dignity, huh? According as by some it is said. And now this is Bonaventure down there. We got to watch out for that guy.

[14:58] My footnotes. Yeah, that's funny. Yeah, that person is a hypostasis by a property, by distinct property pertaining to what dignity, right? Okay. It's almost like saying just that a person is a hypostasis that has some dignity, which is not false if you say well. That's true. Yeah, a hypostasis of a rational nature, so it has a certain dignity, right? Because of that.

[15:34] If therefore there was made a union in a person and not in a hypostasis, right? Okay. Consequently, it would not be made a union except by according to a certain dignity, right? Okay. That's using Thomas is not saying this is what Buonaventure is doing. No, he's saying if you say this is so, we look at the difference there, right? And you say, well, because union of the person but not the hypostasis, so that you remove hypostasis from your what pertains to the person, you only have the dignity left, right?

[16:10] And then you have an accidental union. And this, the Council of Ephostasis approving, is demned by Cyril, by Cyril rather, under these words: If one in Christ divides the what subsistences, after the union, right,

[16:35] only join them by conjunction which is by dignity, or authority, or according to power, and not but more by the coming together by natural union, he's anathema.

[17:01] Third, huh? Because only and hypostasis is that to which we attribute the operations and the properties of nature, and those things which pertain to the notion of the nature in the concrete. For we say that this man reasons, right? Is capable of laughter, right? And this man is a rational animal, right?

[17:29] And by this reason, this man is said to be a what? Suppositum underlying because he what underlies those things which pertain to what man receiving their what predication they're being said of. If therefore there was a other hypothesis hypostasis in Christ besides the hypostasis of the Word, it would follow that one of these of someone other than of the Word itself would be verified those things which are of man.

[18:09] For example, to be born of the Virgin, to suffer, be crucified, and to be buried, right? And this also was damned, huh? The Council of Ephesus approving, right? Under these words,

[18:29] if someone right to two persons or two subsistences, those things which in the Gospels, right, in the Apostolic writings are imparted, gives words either about Christ said by the saints or by him about himself, and some of them as a word to the man apart from what the God, right? The words "specially understood" applies. Some of these, as sayable of God, only from what to the Word that is from God the Father.

[19:07] He's anathema said. He's saying you can say, well, the man died, but you can't say God died. That's anathema. Yeah, yeah. And if there was a different hypostasis to the human nature from the divine hypostasis, then you'd have to say, right? Some things can be said of the man Christ, could not be said of what the Word, right? You couldn't say God died for us. You can say the man died for us, but you can't say that God died for us.

[19:43] So you're convinced by those three reasons, huh? Three's enough, huh? How many kinds of sin are there, by the way? How many kinds of sin are there? Two. Two or three. But often two is not enough. So many kinds of sin are there in general.

[20:14] Two is not enough. You can divide it in different ways can you Yeah. An actual and mortal and venial, right? Yeah. Okay. So eventually, two kinds of sin, right? Originals be a different kind of sin than from mortal or venial, right? Okay. Yeah. So two is not enough, right?

[20:45] To understand men you've got to have three sins, right? And they're all displeasing to God, but some obviously commit more than others. Two of them will keep you out of heaven, I guess. Yeah.

[21:11] Thus, therefore, it is clear that it isn't a heresy, right? From all ancient times, huh? Abolum, right? from long ago, condemned, right, to say that in Christ there are two what, hypostases or two supposita, or that the what

[21:31] union was not made in the hypostasis or the supposita, huh? So, he's, two things he's saying there, right? You see, there's two hypostases, two things underlying all of this. That's going to be something damned, and if you say the union was not made in hypostasis, that's the same thing. once in the same synod, huh?

[22:08] It reads: If someone does not confess that the flesh, by subsistence, was united from God the Father, the Word, the Word from God the Father, and one to be the Christ with His flesh, to wit, both God and man, you're anathema,

[22:30] anathema. So, if you only predicate the operations and the properties of the nature to the hypostasis, so then it would be false to say something. You can't say Christ's human nature was angry. Yeah, it's not even correct to say. You could say Christ through or by His human nature is angry, right?

[23:02] Christ by His divine nature created the world and so on, right? Through His human nature. Yeah, yeah. You can't predicate the anger of the human nature. Yeah, same way. Even in me, you can't say that my my individual human nature walks. Or my individual human nature understands, right? But that I understand through my nature, right? Why is it you don't have Christ if you don't care

[23:32] So some things Christ does or undergoes through His human nature, and some things He what does through His divine nature, right? Okay. Now I was looking at the text if you are where Christ is saying there in the chapter there, John to to Martha, right? I am the what resurrection and the life, right? And seems to me that he says I am resurrection. He's thinking of something that belongs to him by his human nature, because by his human nature that he he rose right from the dead, right?

[24:13] Okay, he couldn't rise from the dead by his divine nature. Just like he couldn't be dead by his divine nature, right? Okay. But by his divine nature, he's life itself, right? And it's interesting that you have the same order there as you have in the the words that later on he's going to say, "I am the the road, the truth, and the life," right? But as man, he's the road.

[24:41] That's what Thomas takes at the beginning there of the third part, which is about Christ. He says, "Who as man is the road to God, but as God, He's truth itself and life itself." I'm confusing it. What's the difference between your individual human nature and your person? Well, in my own individual human nature, there pertains there's nothing to be found except human nature, right? So, but your individual human nature.

[25:13] But but in me, Duane Berquist, the person, right? I'm not only a human being, but I'm also a geometer, right? I'm also white. I'm also sitting, right? Okay, those don't belong to your individual human nature. Yeah. Those go beyond your individual human nature.

[25:34] I'll give it a push. It's very very hard, you see. You can see how how how much room there was wiggle room for the the heretic and so on, right? Now

[25:47] the first objection was talking about what Aliud right? Huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that just as a accidental difference makes what alterum, right?

[26:12] So a essential difference makes what aliud, right? Now, it's manifest that alteration, huh, which comes about from the accidental difference, can pertain to the same hypostasis or suppositum in created things, in that the same in number can undergo what diverse accidents.

[26:45] So I'm both a what, both white and a geometer right? That's aliud and aliud in me right? Because you've altered Yeah, my, my my being white is something other than my being a geometer

[27:04] right? But it's not, however, possible in created things that the same thing in number subsists under diverse what essences or natures. Whence, just as alterum at alterum in creatures does not signify diversity of suppositum, but only diversity of accidental forms, so that Christ is said aliud et aliud, right? This Latin does not imply a diversity of what suppositum or hypostasis, but the diversity of what natures.

[27:51] Whence Gregory Nazianzen says in his epistle to Cledonium aliud et aliud are those from which the Savior is, but not alius et alius, right?

[28:10] And then he makes the contrast that I was making there. I say vero aliud et aliud a contrario, right? Then the way it's had in the Trinity, for there we say alius et alius because the Father is alius and from the Son, right? That we do not confound the subsistences of the persons, but we don't say in the Trinity aliud et aliud. That's kind of interesting, right?

[28:44] Because in a way, the mystery of the Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are contrary, right? Because in the one you have a unity of nature. And a multiplicity of persons, and the other one you have unity of person, multiplicity of natures, right? And therefore, you know, when they talk about the the heresies or the mistakes about the incarnation, Trinity, and they say the truth is in between what two extremes, right?

[29:12] So the truth about the Trinity is in between the extreme of saying there are three persons and three natures, and there's one person and one nature, right? And you can explain the mistakes by the truth, because there's one nature and three persons, you could see why somebody might think there's three natures to correspond to three persons. So the person who says there's three persons and three natures has part of the truth, three persons.

[29:44] But He's mistaken about there being three natures. In vice versa, the man who says well because there's only one nature, there's only one person there, he's got part of the truth too, because he has one nature. Nobody's mistaken about there being one person, right? But if you say either one of these heresies is the truth, it can't explain. It's what? Yeah. If there is really only one nature, one person, in God, why would anybody think there is three natures and three persons?

[30:12] Is it? There is no basis at all in what you claim to be the truth, right? And vice versa, if there are truly three natures and three persons, right, in God, why would anybody think just one nature, one person? There'd be no basis, no truth in there, right? But if the truth is as it is, that there is one nature in three persons, then you can see, right?

[30:36] So the truth explains, in some ways, why people may be what mistakes, huh? But mistakes can't explain each other. Okay. It's interesting, you know, when you study the soul there, you find out that Plato apparently, the Platonists thought that the souls of dogs and cats are immortal too. And of course, Aristotle rejects that, right, and sees it just the human soul, the understanding soul, is immortal. But then you have the other position that says no soul is what immortal, huh?

[31:16] So Aristotle's position is in between those who say no soul is immortal, which is the opinion of the early scientists, the early philosophers, and modern science still uses the word soul, but they have the same idea, and the Platonists, right? But they can't explain each other, right?

[31:36] But Aristotle's position explains both, right? So like said in King Lear, right, all my reports go with the modest truth, nor more, nor clipped, but so. In Shakespeare, instead of saying neither nor, they say nor nor. Instead of saying either or, they say or or. Okay, is that? So he says all my reports go with the modest truth, nor more, nor clipped, right? Neither more nor less, huh?

[32:12] But so, or as Falstaff says, that they say more or less than the truth, they are villains and the sons of darkness. He's a big liar. Yeah, he's a big liar. He's a big liar himself, though. Or politician. Yeah, but then you see, you know, as often explained that in the courtroom, you say, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

[32:40] The second and the third phrases are not just reiterating what the first one says, but they're excluding the two ways you could depart from the truth by saying more than the truth or saying less than the truth, saying more than the truth or clipping it, in the words of the one, right.

[33:02] So there's a little likeness there between the virtues of reason and the moral virtues, which are very clearly, I mean, between two extremes, like courage is in between cowardice and foolhardiness. But in a way, truth is something like that. It's in between two mistakes, two falsehoods, one of which is an excess, you might say, and the other falls short. But when you say that what is is not, then you're cutting.

[33:37] You say what is not is, then you're adding, right? How many people are in class today in class today? Nine. Okay. What's he saying? How many people are in class today? He said, oh, twenty. So now I'm saying more than the truth I'm saying what was not was right. But if I said only five guys showed up today, then I'm saying less than the truth. In both cases, I departed, right?

[34:06] In one case, I'm saying that who was there was not there. Other case, who was not there was there. And on the second objection, we'll start here because it seems that the definition of person or hypostasis in general is here, because it seems that the definition of person or hypostasis in general is a individual substance, right? Okay.

[34:33] And Thomas says, well, let's be a little more precise there. To the second, it should be said that hypostasis signifies a particular substance, not just in any way, but in so far as it is in its what completion, right?

[34:53] For as it comes into the union of something more complete, it is not called hypostasis. I think his example there, the hand or the foot, right? You say, oh, my hand is what in the genus substance as something individual, it's an individual hand, right? But is this a person? Here's another person.

[35:15] Here's another person. No. And likewise, the human nature in Christ, although it is a particular substance, because nevertheless it comes into union with something more what complete, to wit, of the whole Christ, in so far as he is God and man, it cannot be said to be a hypostasis or suppositum. But that complete thing to which it what runs together is said to be the hypostasis or what suppositum.

[35:54] Okay. So that's a very Kind of precision of what the great poet Boethius is saying, right? Now the third, third objection. If he's a man, how can he have a hypothesis other than a human hypostasis, right?

[36:38] Or if he doesn't have human hypostasis, how can he be a man, right? Or you're not a man by your hypostasis, but by the nature you have, and he has the human nature as well as the divine nature. To the third, it should be said that even in created things, a singular thing is not placed in a genus or species by reason of what pertains to its what individuation, but by reason of its nature, right?

[37:16] Which is determined by its what form. In my famous text in Philippians, huh? when he was in the form of God, he took on the form of a slave, right? A form there is taken for what the individual nature.

[37:35] For individuation is more by matter in composed things, right? Therefore, it should be said that Christ is in the human species by reason of the human nature he assumed, not by reason of what hypostasis, huh? Okay.

[37:57] Back to my homely example there, right? When I do that line to the other point, right? Remember that, huh? So that point now is the beginning of this new line, right? But it's not the beginning of the new line by reason of being what that new line's own end point, is it? By reason of the point it already was. Okay, so kind of

[38:31] spell these things out. Have to look again at that text on Thomas there from the Second Vatican Council, right? No, what if I printer what, James? You know, they got all the emails to me.

[38:56] I've been told I should run my computer, my my printer more, because then it inks dries up. You know, I mean. It can have a new ink thing in there, but if you don't use it for a while, it just doesn't work. It use it or lose it, you know. I mean that's the way it is That's the way it is. Now, the last years out of the sunshine, they really had a nice thing there in the secretary's office.

[39:19] You know, and could just you know press a button, and you walked down the hall, and you already printed out several copies. It's so fast, you know. So how much did it cost me? I was talking to the secretary one time. It was expensive, you know. I mean, it really was efficient. I mean, just perfectly crisp, clear. You know, the joke was, you know, I got to try to run and sell a

[39:43] business. So I was kind of pretty happy, you know, for a while. Okay. Well, the heretic got caught there. Now, see if he can do something else here, huh? To the fourth, one proceeds thus: It seems that the person of Christ is what composed.

[40:09] For the person of Christ is not other than the person or hypostasis of the Word, as is clear. But in the Word, there is not another what

[40:22] person and nature, as is clear from those things which are said in the first part. Since, therefore, the nature of the Word is simple, as has been shown in the first part, it is impossible that the person of Christ be composed. It's a strange argument, this way, isn't it? You're going against us, aren't

[40:49] you? I don't know. I'm really surprised. However, every composition seems to be from what parts. But the divine nature cannot have the notion of a part, because every part has a notion of the imperfect. Aristotle, in the eight books of Natural Hearing, says the word "perfect" and the word "whole" mean almost the same thing. And therefore, in the fifth book of Wisdom, he takes up those two words: the word "perfect" and the word "whole."

[41:31] Therefore, it is impossible that the person of Christ be composed from two natures. Moreover, what is composed from some things would seem to be homogenous with them,

[41:50] just as from bodies is not put together anything except a body. Therefore, if from the two natures something in Christ is composed, it would follow that that is not a what person, but a body.

[42:09] And thus, in Christ, there would be made a union of natures, and this is again what we showed before, right? But against this is what Damascene says. This guy's come back now, huh? In the third book, huh? On the Orthodox faith, in the Lord Jesus Christ, we recognize two natures. One, however, what hypostasis? That was quoted before, but then he goes on, right? Here's the full quote: ex utrisque compositum.

[42:50] Strange. Okay, what Thomas must see some distinction I didn't see, you know. Probably. I answer: It should be said that the person or hypostasis of Christ can be considered in two ways. In one way, by that which it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, just as the nature of the word. Well, that's what I was thinking about.

[43:29] It's unheretical to me to say that nature, the person, was composed, right? Because in itself, it's something altogether what simple. In another way, according as the notion, according to the notion of person or hypostasis, to which it pertains to subsist in some what nature,

[43:57] and according to this, the person of Christ subsists in what two natures. Whence, although it is one thing subsisting, right, it is nevertheless other and other the ratio subsisting, right, and thus the person is said to be composed in so far as one subsists in two natures.

[44:27] Okay, now going back to my own example, you know, where we have the second line drawn to that point, right? So it doesn't have its own endpoint. So is that point composed?

[44:49] No, looked at in itself, that point is altogether what indivisible, right? But you can say this point is beginning of line A and the beginning of what line B, and it's in line A and it's in line B. So in thought, it's composed,

[45:15] right? But that's a little, you know, a little. That's what he means, right? But still, it seems to me, you know, that if you just were asked without any distinction, you'd say what not composed, huh? Because then you'd be ending up with historians, right? But he's saying alia et alia ratio subsistendi, right? Not other another res, not another another thing, right? There is only one person there, right?

[45:46] Now that person is altogether simple, right? But this one person is subsisting in two natures. Just like this one point is altogether simple, right? In itself, it's altogether one, right? Not composed in any way, whatsoever. But it's what in line A is its beginning, and in line B is its beginning, right? Okay. Kind of strange I just called it composed.

[46:23] Okay. To this, as clear he says the reply the first objection, which is talking about it being simple, right? Thomas said, "Okay, that's I meant. It's in itself, right? Okay.

[46:40] The second argument is saying, well, if you have a composition, you've got parts, right? Okay. So he says that composition of the person from the natures is not said by reason of parts, but by reason of what? There being two natures. Just as everything in which two things come together can be said to be composed of them, huh?

[47:09] Let's make clear that first one. Yeah. That's interesting because it's it's able to be said that it's composed from them. Yeah. We make contact with this.

[47:29] Then to the third, he says about the homogeneity of things. To the third, it should be said that this is not verified in every composition. That that which is composed is what homogeneous with the things composing it, but this is so only in the parts of the continuous. For the continuous is not composed except from continuous things. So a line is not composed of points, but of lines.

[48:01] And a surface is not composed of lines, but surfaces. For the animal is composed of the soul and the body, of which neither is a what? Animal.

[48:19] That's a very strange meaning of composed, though, right? I remember Father Boulay talking about fear, and there's going to be any fear in heaven, you know. It's a very

[48:32] attenuated meaning of fear, right? Very stretched meaning of fear, right? All right, it's a little strange I used the words there, Thomas. I don't know if I. Want to? That could be piously expounded, but I wanted to done this.

[49:09] Okay. This is a better time to break and then go into the next one Yeah. okay. because it's kind of longer. So we go on to Article Five here.

[49:24] To the first, one proceeds thus: It seems that in Christ there was not a union of soul and body, because then you'd have another what person? That's what they thought, right?

[49:36] For from the union of soul and body in us is caused the person or hypostasis of man. If, therefore, the body and soul were united in Christ, it would follow that from the union of them some hypostasis was constituted. But not, however, the hypostasis of the Word of God, which is eternal. Therefore, in Christ there would be some person or hypostasis apart from the hypostasis of the Word, which is against the contrary to the faith, right?

[50:16] Moreover, from the union of the soul and body is constituted the nature of human species. For Damascene says in the third book that in our Lord Jesus Christ there is not a what common species, huh? But individual one.

[50:40] Therefore, in Him there was not made a composition of soul and body. That's Damascene's saying there about common species, huh? Common species. Moreover, the soul is not joined to the body except that it might what vivify it. But the body of Christ was able to be vivified by the Word of God, which is the fountain and beginning of life. Sounds a little bit almost like areas, right?

[51:13] Right. The Word of God was the place of the soul. Therefore, in Christ there was not a union of soul and body. But against all this is that the body is not said to be animated, which comes from the word soul anima, right? Except from the union of the soul. But the body of Christ is said to be animatum, according to that which the Church sings, assuming an animated body.

[51:48] He chose to. He thought worthwhile to be born in the Virgin. Therefore, in Christ there was a union of body and soul, right? Thomas is briefing to the point here. His response: The answer should be said that Christ is said to be a man univocally with other men, right? So I always say, this is you know I like to catch people and say, is anything said univocally of God and man, right?

[52:22] And of course, Thomas says, you know, in the earlier part, the previous part, said nothing is said univocally of God and creature, right? But, yeah, yeah, I hear Thomas is saying, yeah, that man is said univocally of Christ and us, right?

[52:44] As existing in the same what species, according to that of the apostle. That's the apostle again again, right? Philippians chapter two verse seven, made in the likeness of men, right? But essential likeness. But it pertains to the notion of the human species that the soul be joined to the body. That's how you get a man.

[53:12] For the form does not constitute the species except through the fact that it is the act of the matter. And to this, and this is that to which generation is terminated, by which the nature intends the very what species.

[53:30] Whence it is necessary to say that in Christ that the soul is united to the body, and the contrary is what heretical, right? And my text is a reference to the Second, Council Constantinople.

[53:51] As being what, Taking away, from the truth of the humanity of Christ, huh? If he wouldn't be a man, as well as God, he'd be what a soul and a body but not a man.

[54:12] the Russian Orthodox Catholic convert, I think he was talking a lot about how these different heresies that misrepresented Christ's natures and personhood gave rise to various types of authoritarianism within the Byzantine Empire and in destabilizing sort of ways, totalitarianism in certain ways you could say, because government forms of government it seems can be inspired by an understanding or misunderstanding of the nature of Christ, and only the correct understanding of who Christ is, one person, two natures,

[54:59] seemingly would give rise to maybe good government. I'm not reading too much into it and going too far off on a tangent, but just so it's connected to what we just read. I'll let that pass. You know, the first objection Thomas says. To the first, therefore, should be said that from this reason some were moved, right? Who denied the union of the body and the soul in Christ, right?

[55:35] So the history behind this, right? But this article is in here at all, right? Lest through this they be forced, right, to bring in a new person or hypostasis in Christ, new or addition to the to the that of the word. Why? Because they saw that in pure men, right? That means what? Just men. Mere men. From the union of the soul to the body, a person is constituted, right?

[56:10] So they thought if there was a union of soul and body in Christ, then there would be constituted a person. So you can see how they got into this way of thinking, right?

[56:21] But this happens in mere men because the soul and the body are thus joined in them that they exist. What? exist. But in Christ, right, they are united to each other so that they might be joined to another more chief one, right? That they might subsist this chief thing, person in nature, right? In the nature composed from them, right? So they're joined together so that this other person, speaking of other there, could subsist in human nature or be a man.

[57:09] And in count of this, from the union of the soul and body in Christ is not constituted a new hypostasis or person, but but the

[57:24] the thing coniunctum and the thing joined together, body and soul, is advenit. It comes to right a pre-existing person or hypostasis, right? So that's why I make myself an example, right? You say, one second,

[57:46] you say now if you bring another line, right? And this line is what finite, doesn't run forever. This line is going to have to have an endpoint. And since this line already has an endpoint, this other line is going to have its own endpoint too, right? But the point is, this other line is drawn what to that point, so that the already existing point there, right, becomes the endpoint of the second line as well as the what being the end of the first line, right?

[58:27] So the same point is in both of these. It's insisting there, right? Why? Well, if the point in us it's not drawn to the divine person, so it has its own endpoint, its own individual person. Help me there, careful with imagination, but maybe it's likeness there, right? See, where, he draws this nature from the Blessed Virgin, right? Huh? To his own person, right? So it subsists in this.

[59:05] Since the divine person subsists in this nature drawn from the Blessed Virgin, right, rather than subsisting by itself or by itself, right? As they say I was talking there in the break. there with this mystery of the incarnation? You must be, you know, promise to understand that, in heaven, right? In a way we can't understand on earth, right? That's part of our, of our blessedness.

[59:34] I mean, Thomas sometimes explains, you know, when Christ gives the definition of eternal life, in the seventeenth chapter of John, this is eternal life to know you and Him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ. There seems to say as if, what eternal life consists in, knowing the divinity, but also knowing what the one who sent and sent His man, right? So maybe the mystery of the incarnation, right?

[1:00:02] After that, I suppose Mary would be the interesting thing to understand, right? Yeah, yeah. In the twentieth, century Pius XII says after, you know, God and Christ know Mary is the joy of heaven, right? But it's kind of a great, great mystery. What did the Thomists say of Mary that she partakes of the hypostatic? No, what Monsignor Dionne I guess the Thomists said you got to write an article.

[1:00:28] So Monsignor Dionne laid it out in kind of a bald way, you know, just the the syllogism, the way it is, and so you you you flour it up a little bit.

[1:00:39] And but but the name of the article was the grace of Mary is of the hypostatic order, right? Okay. And that's what I was saying, you know, that when Mary says I am the immaculate conception, you know, does she not know grammar? You see. Ah, and I raised the same question there with the text of chapter eleven of John, right? Where where he says to to Martha, I am the Anastasis, I am the resurrection and the life, right?

[1:01:12] Does he not know grammar? You know, my purpose doesn't know grammar. Um, or does he say resurrection because resurrection is that by which everything that resurrects resurrects, right? And so the resurrection of Christ is in some way the cause the resurrection of everybody else, right? So he's not just you know resurrected, but he is the resurrection because his resurrection is universal cause of everybody else's resurrection. So Paul can say that if Christ, you know, if Christ rose from the dead, then we will rise from the dead, right?

[1:01:48] But if we don't rise from the dead, then Christ didn't rise from the dead, right? That connection. And so maybe when Mary said I am the immaculate conception, ah, she's speaking of one of her privileges, right? And in a sense, the first privilege in time, right? The mother of God is the greatest privilege, right? But this makes her suitable to be the mother of God, and there's.

[1:02:17] So that it's a prerogative of Mary, right? But because there is something universal about Mary's causality, I mean, she's called the yeah, she's called the Mother of Mercy, right? Okay, so that there is universality there, right? Because mercy extends to all those who are saved, you know, everybody in some way. So she's the Mother of Mercy. Then she has, well, the mediatrix of all grace, as you say, right?

[1:02:56] So maybe the Immaculate Conception is being said in that way grammatically, right? To indicate that there is something what universal about what's been given to Mary, right? That we're all going to, in some way, share in her excellence, right? It's going to something to be derived to us, you know. She's the Aqueductus, as Bernard of Clairvaux says.